I hope that Always do a version Engine for ONE CPU CORE

[Karmazen & Oliver]

In that moment a lot of people have DUAL, QUAD, DUAL+DUAL, QUAD+QUAD, and 4xQAUD ¡¡ etc...

but I like use ONLY one CPU... I have two PC, a 200MMX ( yes ¡¡ it have 9 years ¡¡ and 128 MB ), and windows 98 SE, since 2001.. ok not reinstalling system in a lot of years..

and the other PC. more new, a DUAL 820 D with 2 GB and raptors HDD, ok... I like multi cores... ok... but I like engines on SINGLE...

why ?

I like use the PC for more ONE job... and on second plane, engine thinking about one position, or analisys my real games... but NOT like THAT ALL COREs, are thinking in chess...

only ONE... if I have two...

< Wats consume, < temp, < noise .. I have time while I worked in others jobs... or read in internet, or checking my mails...

I don´t like THE MULTI MP engines ¡¡¡ and the better are not so big... < 50-100 points of ELO...

maybe it´s better if THE ENGINE can select How MANY % of CPU and number of that use...

bye-

[Ovyron]

maybe it´s better if THE ENGINE can select How MANY % of CPU and number of that use...

Multi CPU engines already have the option to only use one core.

[Sylwy]

In that moment a lot of people have DUAL, QUAD, DUAL+DUAL, QUAD+QUAD, and 4xQAUD ¡¡ etc...

but I like use ONLY one CPU... I have two PC, a 200MMX ( yes ¡¡ it have 9 years ¡¡ and 128 MB ), and windows 98 SE, since 2001.. ok not reinstalling system in a lot of years..

and the other PC. more new, a DUAL 820 D with 2 GB and raptors HDD, ok... I like multi cores... ok... but I like engines on SINGLE...

why ?

I like use the PC for more ONE job... and on second plane, engine thinking about one position, or analisys my real games... but NOT like THAT ALL COREs, are thinking in chess...

only ONE... if I have two...

< Wats consume, < temp, < noise .. I have time while I worked in others jobs... or read in internet, or checking my mails...

I don´t like THE MULTI MP engines ¡¡¡ and the better are not so big... < 50-100 points of ELO...

maybe it´s better if THE ENGINE can select How MANY % of CPU and number of that use...

bye-

Yeah !

Sweet dilemma:

to have just a single girl friend (wife) -1CPU or an harem- a lot of CPUs ! A single problem in both circumstances: the money !

Regards,
Sylwy

[Mike S.]

Multi CPU engines already have the option to only use one core.

Yes, and that is very important but also, that hopefully the programmers will continue to pay attention to the single core performance (and not go only for the best 2/4/8... cores performance). The same topic was discussed in the Rybka forum where I have mentioned some examples of practical use of an engine:

1. Kibitz 3 or 4 games simultanously from a GM tournament, online. Assign one kibitz engine each, on a quad.
2. Interactive analysis of a game, but user doesn't want to rely on just one engine. So he runs 2 or even 3, parallel.
3. Engine match with ponder=on on a dual core cpu. One core per engine, each.
4. Long analysis of a correspondence position in the background with one core, while the user can do other things on the same computer, without performance impact of one task on the other.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;#pid28259

[Karmazen & Oliver]

maybe it´s better if THE ENGINE can select How MANY % of CPU and number of that use...

Multi CPU engines already have the option to only use one core.

are you sure that ALL engines MULTICORES have that options ?

deepfritz ?
deepschereder ?

multi rybja OK...

but the problem is that THAT engines are optimized for > CPU...

what is better, the version MONO CORE ? or a version multicore that ONLY use ONE CPU ?

i think that the version optimized for ONE CPU are better that versions "deep" ... castrated in ONE CORE...

bye.

[Pradu]

on optimized for ONE CPU are better that versions "deep" ... castrated in ONE CORE...

If you only care about single cores, you arn't looking for the best possible version of an analysis engine anyways. So it doesn't make sense to me why one should optimize for a single core.

[Uri Blass]

on optimized for ONE CPU are better that versions "deep" ... castrated in ONE CORE...

If you only care about single cores, you arn't looking for the best possible version of an analysis engine anyways. So it doesn't make sense to me why one should optimize for a single core.

I do not understand you.
People want programs to perform best on the conditions that they use so they certainly want programs to perform best on single processor.

Oliver explained that using single processor is not limited to people
who have only single processor and even people who have more than single processor may want to use only one processor for analysis when the second processor does a different task at the same time.

Uri

[bob]

maybe it´s better if THE ENGINE can select How MANY % of CPU and number of that use...

Multi CPU engines already have the option to only use one core.

are you sure that ALL engines MULTICORES have that options ?

deepfritz ?
deepschereder ?

multi rybja OK...

but the problem is that THAT engines are optimized for > CPU...

what is better, the version MONO CORE ? or a version multicore that ONLY use ONE CPU ?

i think that the version optimized for ONE CPU are better that versions "deep" ... castrated in ONE CORE...

bye.

Your concept of parallel search engines is badly garbled. They are not "optimized for more than one core". They are optimized for one core, in fact, but will use more than one if possible...

[M ANSARI]

A good well designed chess engine should be able to use whatever cores are available. I think the design for single core should become obsolete just like designing an engine to only use 486 CPU's should become obsolete. You cannot make a single core engine use multiple cores ... but a MP engine can and should be able to use a single core. By the way today's MP engines would also run fine on an old 486 machine.

[Spock]

If I can quote Vas from the Rybka forum:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... id=2519#fp

Actually, single-processor Rybka sales far outnumber multi-processor, by something like 4:1. For Fritz, this ratio might be even a little bit higher. The average person is just not sitting at the top of the hardware curve.

Vas

That really surprises me